well, we're sill working with either/or logic here, either we ban it or we don't. perhaps, i'm thinking, we can look to zapatista logic for a trick to untying this knot, and yet, somewhere in my memory banks i seem to recall that in zapatista country the use of alcohol is banned...so i guess they have neither experience with the "smoking in a bar" debate, not having "bars", nor an aversion to selective either/or "let's just ban it" logic.

again, i am not supporting the banning of tobacco, or of smoking tobacco. i am simply waving a white flag and asking "can we all get along?" because i know that we can. and that it won't be easy.

elsewhere in this debate andrew grice suggests a compromise, banning in restaurants and allowing in bars, pointing out that a "reasonable portion of the non-smokers in bars aren't exactly drinking for their health anyway." any compromise is a start, but this one fails on two counts that i can think of, one being joel wiens' argument in favor of workers rights, and the other being entertainment establishments where a sizable portion of the crowd is attending to listen to music etc.

all in all, i tend to favor the smoking and non-smoking sections argument, allowing for a truly effective method of keeping the smokers air separate from the non-smokers air. again, with enough good faith, conflicts like these can always be resolved. and that is what we are about here on the narcosphere, yes?